Skip to main content

About your Search

20130201
20130228
STATION
KQED (PBS) 2
MSNBCW 2
WMPT (PBS) 2
MSNBC 1
WETA 1
LANGUAGE
English 14
Search Results 0 to 13 of about 14 (some duplicates have been removed)
democrats on this issue, harry reid, senator lahey, talking pretty dismissively about the assault weapons ban. gwen: to weapon ban of any kind. >> right. although the magazine restrictions, they still appear to be on the table. the background check measure is astro nomically popular with the government, something like 90% of the people supported it including n.r.a. members. it seems to be a bit of a clever tactic to give some moderate politicians a way to try angulate on this issue so they can say i'm not for the assault weapons ban. that's extreme but i do support this lesser measure even though the irony that something like expanding background checks has the potential to affect a much broader potential policy impact in terms of the number of gun crimes. >> you said a number of n.r.a. members are in favor of the background checks. we haven't heard the n.r.a. say they're in favor of it. are they backing off on the background check issue? >> at least in public, they have not backed off at all. this is a bit of a flip flop for them. back in 1999 the last time this issue was debated, the n.
such a liability for the democrats that harry reid and other democrats throw him overboard, then chris cities -- chris cities gets to name replacement. the other part of this is as you point out that if the fbi can go up the food chain because the part that they are looking at is influence pedaling, allegations of corruption that perhaps senator menendez his official office to work with his donor to pass out some business favors, perhaps, to this dozier. these are the allegations, this is what is out there. if they cannot just get to menendez but perhaps to a broader net of even bigger fish like the clintons who have been known to work with this donor, then i think the democrats have a wider scandal on their hands. >> bill: i think there is scandal here. >> guilt by association. >> bill: at this point, correct, there is no hard evans to show anything. as dr. crowley pointed out. >> that's what i have to call her. >> bill: you don't get a warrant or don't have fbi resources on a fishing expedition. >> innocent until proven guilty. wouldn't talk to the fbi and men then des who won by 19 points.
and need more time. it was harry reid who called this vote as sort of an attempt to call their bluff saying this is enough, you're delaying this for no reason but i don't think this is going to help the republicans' image especially when they're going around saying we're not actually trying to stop this nomination. we're not actually filibustering, so what are they doing? i think especially for people who are sick of the sort of washington games, this isn't a good image for them. >> jake, let's talk about this break that congress is on. house speaker nancy pelosi blamed republicans for not using this time more productively. take a listen. >> they manufactured the crisis and instead of having us try to avert that crisis they go on a nine-day recess. why? ? why? people outside the congress are saying no deal, no break. >> why, jake, why? >> nancy pelosi did similar things when she had control but that simplifies a complicated issue. democrats and republicans and the president are miles apart when it comes to averting the sequester. democrats want to raise taxes. republicans say they don't wan
senate and harry reid is in no position to point fingers at people for inaction, right? >> we ought to pass a budget and we're going to pass a budget this year. but let's also lack at the fact that there's not a single plan out there. i've been involved in every one of these bipartisan plans that hasn't said, you need about, on the minimum, about $1.2 trillion if you're going to do a new revenue, if you're going to do a $4 trillion deficit reduction plan. i'm all for believing we have boot got to do more entitlement reform, but we have to do more revenues as well. and opposed to going through all of these stupid cuts, not only have we heard about 750,000 lost jobs, but in certain cases, we'll cost the taxpayers money. when we buy ten tanks, we get a volume discount. we'll break those contracts. when you do four years of cancer research, and don't get the first three years, you'll flush that. that's less meat and eggs going to the grocery store, driving up grocery prices. this was set up to be the stupidest of all options. whoever dreamed it up, who knows at this point, but at this p
Search Results 0 to 13 of about 14 (some duplicates have been removed)